Just in case you’re wondering how that could be, like surely it’s obvious, right….?
This is erotica. It was designed to titillate and make men think about sex. Is it porn? What’s the difference between porn and erotica, anyway? Take a closer look at this image. Does your opinion change if you realize the artist used the cone bras of the period to stealthily give her visible nipples? What if I point out that a skirt in this time period would always have been worn with a slip, so this lady is sitting here without her underwear? If you’re familiar with anatomy from a drawing perspective, it’s very obvious the television antenna pole is pressed directly against her vulva. Does that change things? Look again at her outfit, especially her heels and stockings: does this become porn if you know pole dancing became popular in the 1950s? How did she get up there? There’s no ladder in the picture, and while we could extrapolate that it’s just out of frame, we could say with just as much textual evidence that she climbed the pole. Does that make a difference? How about her blouse? At first glance you might just think it has long lapels, but if you look closer you’ll realize it’s unbuttoned all the way down to where her bra should start. Does that count as partial nudity? Does the original intent matter, or only how we perceive it now?
This is ONE IMAGE. That’s a lot of questions.
Now do it for the several trillion images that exist on this planet. Don’t forget that some things considered totally nonsexual in some cultures are wildly taboo and eroticized in others. And don’t forget that even within a single culture, context can change everything; a naked Playboy spread is porn, a naked marble statue probably isn’t.
So: is it obvious? Or is what’s obvious now nothing but the fact that NOTHING about porn is obvious?
